A couple of weeks there was a poll to the question, “Should theologians and Church leaders involve in politics in Nagaland?” There was clearly a split in opinion with 40% saying “NO” and 42% saying “YES” and 12% had other reasons close to either of the definite responses. To me personally, the question is like asking whether fish should swim in the water. The answer is obvious. In Nagaland, the majority either professes Christianity by default or embraces it by conviction. Either way, the separation between politics and faith is akin to dichotomizing the inseparable essential constituents of a human: body and soul.
Just last year there was another Morung Express Poll to the question, “Are Christian churches losing the influence in Naga society as its voice is no longer the dominating voice shaping social morality?” (June 1, 2015). The responses were strangely similar to the ones above whereby 45% said “YES” and 33% said “NO” and 22% had other opinions. The fact that nearly half of the respondents believe that Christian churches have no moral influence on the society can be attributed to two reasons: either the Church is not getting involved in politics at all or politics itself has got the church.
The church’s moral influence on the Naga society and the need for Christian ministers’ involvement in politics are closely related. But that would largely depend on how Naga in general perceive “politics”. If politics is understood as a power-wielding mechanism then certainly involving in politics would be suicidal – both for Christian ministers and secular professionals, including State politicians. However, politics understood as a striving for the welfare of the State and its people or as realizing the idea of a good life (Aristotle), necessitates Christian ministers to engage in politics. The principles of Christianity never contradict the overarching aspiration of politics –the enhancement of life for all (human and everything else). Having said that, the priority of Christian ministers, like other any other professionals’, is distinct. Jesus was not a politician in the strict sense of the word, although he would’ve been the finest. He respected the boundaries of each calling (Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar– Mark 12:17) but he never shied away from politics, in as far as it meant ensuring life to the fullest for all (John 10:10). He openly reprimanded the hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders obsessed with external piety but not with actual realities (Luke 11: 37-53). Among many virtuous examples, he insisted on giving justice, honor and dignity to the most oppressed, the sinned-upon, groups of people in his time – the Samaritans (Luke 10: 25-37), women (John 8: 11; Luke 10: 38-42), children (Mark 10: 14-16), diseased (Luke 8: 43-48), disabled (John 9: 2-12), socio-religious outcasts (Luke 19: 1-10)and the economically poor (Luke 16: 19-31). By deliberately siding with the marginals he incurred the wrath of the powers-that-be, but he did anyway, choosing not to hide behind the curtain of false religiosity that excludes the agenda of life for all. In short, Jesus was not a politician but he was involved in politics in the noblest way.
Such Christ-like involvement in politics is every Christian minister’s task. One of the prominent Indian Christian ethicists, K.C. Abraham, very succinctly said that the “Church is called to strengthen the secular and civil base of politics to affirm life in its relationship.” Christian ministers, as pastors or professors, may have other things to attend to. Depending on the nature of office and responsibilities, their primary tasks would vary from teaching, preaching, worship, to performing sacramental rituals and planning and conducting liturgical events. Still, being a minister of God is no excuse for social and moral apathy. Every practice perceived as “spiritual” must ultimately have practical implications. The Christian minister makes that possible by being sensitive and active in making the message and content of Christianity relevant. In other words, political engagement makes Christian ministers effective servants of God by becoming salt and light and in return enabling the flock/laity to be the same (Matthew 5: 13-16).
The fact that Nagaland boasts of being a Christian majority state and at the same time have to hang its head in shame at the corruption cases is a reflection of a distorted vision of Christian faith. The Christian ministers are morally responsible as much as those who find themselves on the wrong side of the law. When a church member falls from occupational grace, the Christian minister must deem it opportune to reexamine its own failings. Not giving adequate attention or simply being complacent about the social conditions is just as unhealthy as not providing sufficient spiritual nurturing. All Christians must attempt to understand and see the connection between faith and duty. Being a Christian living out Christian principles does not make a person less of a State’s citizen. Likewise, involving in politics does not make a Christian minister less of a Christian. The political responsibility of a Christian minister as a citizen of a state as well as the Christian responsibility of a secular professional as a Christian is equally important. When this equilibrium strikes a balance, the Christian ministers fulfill their secular tasks and the Christian professionals their religious tasks. And in doing so, both the Christian minister and the secular professional seek not to unreasonably separate faith from profession and Christian identity from civic identity.
Allow me to the turn the first poll’s question around and ask, “Should secular professionals involve in Christian ministry in Nagaland?” The answer, I’m confident, would be a resounding “YES”. And why not? It is every Christian’s prerogative to witness to Christ but at the same time are mandated to be efficient in one’s line of work (If you don’t work, don’t eat - 2Thessalonians 3:10b) and not mere busybodies (v11b). So there are boundaries – no matter how thin – in determining to what extent Christian ministers can involve in politics just as much as there is a limit to how much secular professionals can involve in ministry. But these mutual limits are not necessarily set by religious identities as they are by professional obligations. Christian ministers are not at all expected to assume the role of professional politicians, who have to ideally think, eat and breathe good governance (sitting for 15 and 30 minutes on legislative matters are incredible feats – attainable among happy-go-lucky self-representatives). When Christian ministers behave like politicians, the Church’s foundation (who is Jesus Christ) would shake and its divinely endowed authority will naturally lose its effect – within and without. The secular professionals, including politicians, likewise, cannot allow ministry involvement, or any other negligible commitments, to impinge on their primary profession because in doing so one would be failing both in Christian witness as well as in one’s professional duty. The bottom line is that just as fish must swim in the water and just as it is impossible to separate body and spirit, so should Christian ministers involve in politics because it is an inevitable part of being a member of a State. But they should do so without forgetting the reason, purpose and limits in getting involved. And is that also not true of all other professions?
Dr Eyingbeni Hümtsoe-Nienu Faculty at Clark Theological College
(The essay does not represent the opinion of any church or institution)
